https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/04/us/politics/trump-budget-bill-republicans-tax-cuts.html

Even before House Republicans learned the full price of their tax package on Wednesday, one of the bill’s chief authors, Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, was sowing doubt about the accuracy of the estimate.

“I’m skeptical,” Mr. Smith quipped at an event last month when asked about the coming analysis of the legislation’s cost. “Unless I like the number, I’m against the number.”

In the bitter war over the nation’s fiscal future, President Trump and his Republican allies have united around a new foe: the economists and budget experts who have warned about the costs of the party’s tax ambitions. Republican leaders have set about trying to discredit any hint of unfavorable accounting on their signature legislation as they race to enact it before the president’s self-imposed July 4 deadline.

The latest estimate arrived on Wednesday, projecting that the sprawling bill endorsed by Mr. Trump could add about $2.4 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade.

By then, though, the package of tax, spending and welfare cuts had already ignited an intense wave of political attacks and recriminations. While Republicans scrambled to cast their proposal as fiscally responsible, Wall Street was getting the jitters about the nation’s growing debt burden. The tech executive Elon Musk, having left behind his role seeking to slash government spending for Mr. Trump, savaged the bill again on social media on Wednesday, calling for new legislation to be drafted that “doesn’t massively grow the deficit.”

Most economists — from nonpartisan government watchdogs as well as outside tax analysts across the political spectrum — have concluded that the bill passed by House Republicans, which is now being considered by the Senate, could exacerbate the nation’s fiscal imbalance while contributing less in economic growth than Mr. Trump forecasts.

But party leaders have rejected those assessments, choosing to present a rosier interpretation of their bill. They reserved their fiercest criticism for the Congressional Budget Office, a team of nonpartisan aides who helped to author the price check issued on Wednesday. Mr. Trump and his advisers have tried to paint the budget office as historically inaccurate and overly political.

The attacks are hardly novel. Democrats and Republicans alike have long sniped over official cost estimates in bids to defend their legislation. Nor have the Congressional Budget Office and its peers always offered accurate predictions about the permutations of legislation and the ways in which those changes could alter the trajectory of a complex economy over time.

But the Republican criticisms have taken on greater significance under Mr. Trump, whose administration broadly has looked to undercut experts in Washington while raising the odds that the party could advance a bill without a full reckoning of its costs.

“By trying to sort-of game the referee on these questions, members of Congress are going to miss the fundamental issue of whether this bill is an appropriate response, given where we are with the deficit and debt,” said Jonathan W. Burks, the executive vice president for economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who previously served Republicans including former Speaker Paul Ryan.

A spokeswoman for the Congressional Budget Office, which is run by Phillip L. Swagel, an economist who served under President George W. Bush, declined to comment.

A spokesman for Mr. Smith, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, declined to comment.

The Republican bill extends many of the tax cuts Mr. Trump enacted in 2017, while advancing some of his new campaign promises, such as his pledge to end taxes on tips and overtime. To pay for these ambitions, Republicans proposed about $1.7 trillion in savings targeting a range of antipoverty programs.

But the cuts alone do not offset the total price of the bill, according to congressional findings, which align with other forecasts.

The Budget Lab at Yale, for example, found the Republican proposal could add $2.4 trillion to the debt by 2034. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated it would raise deficits by $2.8 trillion over a 10-year period. And the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit public policy organization that supports deficit reduction, pegged the uncovered cost at $3.3 trillion over the next nine years.

All three organizations, which used different timelines, models and assumptions, found the bill would deliver meager gains in economic growth, which in turn would generate little in added revenues.

“It’s not just the congressional scorekeepers that find this bill would increase the deficit,” said Erica York, the vice president for federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation. “It’s everyone outside of Congress, too.”

Ms. York’s think tank, which generally favors lower taxes, found the Republican bill would increase the debt by more than $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

“And when all the models are in unison — yes, this will increase the deficit; no, it will not do much for growth — it really doesn’t make sense to triple down on the strategy to blame the scorekeeper,” Ms. York added. “The legislation is the problem.”

>>1409835 (OP)
tl;dr dems try to scare everyone into wanting to have less money.

tldr esl shill larps as a white american

>>1409838
>The Republican bill extends many of the tax cuts Mr. Trump enacted in 2017, while advancing some of his new campaign promises, such as his pledge to end taxes on tips and overtime. To pay for these ambitions, Republicans proposed about $1.7 trillion in savings targeting a range of antipoverty programs.
He wants to give amazon.com more tax breaks on the backs of poor people .

>>1409840
Oh yes tell me more how having my overtime getting ass-raped with taxes is actually good for me.

>>1409841
It's good for you because you don't have to pass through massive Hooverville-style homeless encampments and soup kitchens with 100000 people in them, the likes of which haven't been seen since the Great Depression, on your way to work.

>>1409842
Oh I don't? First of all I live in a major city where anytime police try to get rid of massive homeless populations, bleeding heart faggots like you cry crocodile tears and block roads in protests so I can't make it to work to pay for their fucking drug habits. So all of downtown looks like a Fallout sequel.

Second of all, you're still not selling me on this idea where at least one-fourth of my overtime has to go to Shawaniqua and her eight fucking kids because the lazy bitch doesn't work. Who definitely doesn't live in these Hooverville-style homeless encampments you're trying to scare me off with. I'm not a retarded democrat, you're gonna have to do better than
>HURR DE DURR MUH AMAZON COMPANIES DEY TAKIN FROM POOR PEOPLE

related
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/04/business/bls-price-data-collection.html

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is cutting back its collection of data on consumer prices, raising questions about the reliability of federal economic statistics under President Trump.

Every month, a small army of government workers visits stores and other businesses across the country to check prices of eggs, underwear, haircuts, and tens of thousands of other goods and services. The data collected is the basis for the inflation measures that determine cost-of-living increases in union contracts and Social Security benefits and that guide policymakers at the Federal Reserve when they set interest rates, among other applications.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is part of the Labor Department, said on Wednesday that it was reducing its collection of price data “in areas across the country” and that it had stopped gathering data entirely in Buffalo; Lincoln, Neb.; and Provo, Utah. The agency did not give a specific reason for the cuts, but said it “makes reductions when current resources can no longer support the collection effort.”

>>1409843
>Second of all, you're still not selling me on this idea where at least one-fourth of my overtime has to go to Shawaniqua and her eight fucking kids because the lazy bitch doesn't work.
Where do you people get this shit from?

>>1409846
>he thinks my pay stub doesn't show what comes out of my paycheck in the form of taxes
See if you had a real job instead of getting paid in memecoins to shitpost on 4chan you might know something about this subject.

>>1409847
No where do you get the Shawaniqua strawman?

>>1409848
https://open.fiscal.ca.gov/transparency.html

>>1409849
Not seeing where you got the racist strawman and I doubt you live in California anyway

>>1409850
>DAS RACIST
gb2plebbitfag

>>1409854
So you can't name a source where you heard the racist Shawaniqua strawman? I know you aren't original enough to have pulled it out of your own ass, so where did you hear it from?

>>1409838
>tl;dr dems try to scare everyone into wanting to have less money.
Not to point out the obvious, but cutting government benefits means people have less money.

>>1409841
>Oh yes tell me more how having my overtime getting ass-raped with taxes is actually good for me.
You getting your overtime ass-raped with taxes is good for the country. Fuck you in particular.

>>1409859
>Not to point out the obvious, but cutting government benefits means people have less money.
And how is that? I'm not on welfare. Sell it to me.

Don't be like this guy:
>>1409860
>You getting your overtime ass-raped with taxes is good for the country. Fuck you in particular.
Yeah not selling me on this at all.

>>1409838
Trickle down doesn’t work. They’re just peeing on your leg.

>>1409876
I'm still waiting on a solid argument, or even an explanation, how less taxes taking money out of my paycheck = I'll be poorer.

Y'know what? Here's my counter-argument. Try to follow along, this is a really big-brain take that you need a 140 IQ minimum to understand. Ready?

... me paying less in taxes means I keep more of my money I earned, thus making me richer - not poorer like everyone here is claiming.

Refute that.

>>1409881
you're still not american and that's irrefutable

>>1409881
>I'm still waiting on a solid argument, or even an explanation, how less taxes taking money out of my paycheck = I'll be poorer.
Because 1. you'll be paying more for everything else due to tariffs and the like, so the money you normally spend on taxes will be going towards what you usually buy, not anything new. and 2. you'll barely be getting any tax cut anyways because the rich get the biggest ones. So they're putting more money into the economy, but the rich are getting most of it.

>>1409862
>And how is that? I'm not on welfare
You're not people. Obviously I wasn't talking about you.

>>1409862
>>1409899
Ronald Reagan didn't die. He lives on in his economic policies based on racist strawmen arguments which you keep repeating.

>>1409899
>Because 1. you'll be paying more for everything else due to tariffs and the like, so the money you normally spend on taxes will be going towards what you usually buy, not anything new.
I wouldn't have to pay more because of tariffs regardless of what I'm getting taxed?

>2. you'll barely be getting any tax cut anyways because the rich get the biggest ones.
Good for them. I'm still getting a tax cut. How does that mean I'm getting less money by keeping more money, just because someone else is able to keep more of their money than me? What the fuck is this argument? "Yeah you're saving an extra $10 that isn't being taxed, but this other guy is saving $100 so you're actually not saving money!"

>So they're putting more money into the economy, but the rich are getting most of it.
Rich people exist in every society. Deal with it.

>>1409970
You're not getting a 'tax cut'. at least one that'll actually get you extra money. Prices will increase much higher than what you'll be getting back precisely because of these fuckass "cuts". And they'll scale to the total, which you are getting the least from. Meaning that, in your example, they'll be changing the prices to fit the guy getting $100, not you, who only gets $10.

>>1409971
>Prices will increase much higher than what you'll be getting back precisely because of these fuckass "cuts".
How? Explain it. And don't fucking bring up tariffs, those are happening regardless of the cuts. That's a separate issue that I would still be paying for whether or not I get to keep all my overtime.

>>1409975
>And don't fucking bring up tariffs, those are happening regardless of the cuts
how do you think they're justifying the cuts retard? They've been very clear they expect the tariffs to pick up the slack.

>>1409982
So Trump isn't going to do tariffs unless he can cut taxes on overtime? Yes or no.

>>1409975
Anon, what the fuck do you think tariffs are? lmao

>>1409984
He's doing the tariffs. He's done the tariffs. It is because the tariffs they feel they can do the cuts.

>>1409985
A tax on imports. Now answer my question. Is Trump only going through with the tariffs if he can cut taxes on overtime?

>>1409986
Okay cool so now that we've firmly established that the tariffs are happening whether or not overtime is taxed or not, make it make sense why I should be taxed if I don't have to. I'm paying for the tariffs either way, why should I be against saving money and being taxed less?

>>1409986
... It got really fucking quiet around here.

>>1410012
Frankly I’m surprised they humored you for this long.

>>1410014
Well I think we've established that dems are fucking retards that don't have jobs and want everyone to be as poor as they are, seriously trying to tell people they'll have less money if they pay less taxes because they all masturbate furiously to high-tax Europoor countries that they simp over but never move to even though they threaten to every single time Trump wins an election.

GGEZ

>>1410017
stop talking to yourself faggot

>>1409835 (OP)
>Cost of Tax Cuts
This is disingenuous as fuck. For the last time, the government doesn't own the money, it belongs to the citizens. Lowering taxes does not cost the government money. Tax cuts also require spending cuts, which the Democrats and Republicans refuse to do

>>1410026
It's morning again in America.

>>1409988
Doing this will enshrine the tariffs even further because we'll become reliant on them (assuming they work towards this purpose at all, which they likely won't anyways). Ideally the tariffs shouldn't be there either, but the toll they'll take will likely be higher than what you get back from the cut unless you're rich.

>>1410027
a new batch of retards have been swindled

>>1410026
Tax cuts are a cost on regular Americans.
Government spending is for shit that the free market either can't or won't provide at a reasonable cost, and benefits us all.
Public Roads. US Post. Defense. Border Control. Healthcare. All these things enrich all of us.
Republicunts pretend they want to lower taxes, but all they want to do is give more money to billionaires and give more burden to regular Americans

>>1410031
>Government spending is for shit that the free market either can't or won't provide at a reasonable cost,
>Remember that guy who got tired of the government not fixing a road so he did it for them, only for them to undo it all and then fine him?

>>1410033
>Remember that guy who got tired of the government not fixing a road so he did it for them, only for them to undo it all and then fine him?
Why would anyone else remember your fever dreams?

Anyway, that's not what happened. What happened is a family bought a house at the end of what was by that point literally an abandoned road without realizing it, got pissy at the government for not maintaining the, again, "abandoned" road, fixed the road up themselves, and then sued the government for not maintaining the road, only to be told in court that local law said that roads that are abandoned for decades cease to exist with property rights reverting to the relevant plots, so yes the road *didn't exist*. The government then extended a separate road to the property once the abandonment was formalized so they wouldn't be without road/bus/mail access (which of course dicked over the family which spent a bunch of money fixing up a road that *didn't exist* that now ran into their neighbor's yard and not a public street instead of sorting this shit out first).

The issue impacted 2 fucking houses in the middle of bumfuck nowhere and one of them wanted the road abandoned.

Also the road in question ran through the property of a local government official who was feuding with the family in question for being out of towners and for potentially getting in the way of their getting ownership over the road, with them calling the sheriff on them constantly for plowing the road only for them to be left off with a warning every time, never fined. And obviously you can't fucking unplow a street.

Anyway the moral of the story is Republicans are cunts and always carefully review the local property situation before buying any (and never move into the sticks cause they don't want your kind around there).

>>1410037
I was actually thinking of this.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/california-man-suspected-of-painting-crosswalk/
> Northern California man is facing vandalism charges after authorities say he painted a crosswalk on a street, allegedly telling officials it was needed.
Also I keep seeing stories for this:
https://www.northernnewsnow.com/2025/05/28/man-faces-charges-drawing-chalk-crosswalk-intersection-he-says-is-dangerous/
>An activist for pedestrian safety in Virginia is facing charges after creating a makeshift crosswalk at a dangerous intersection in what the city calls an act of vandalism.
But lol what a coincidence that another story drops just a day before you make a retarded anti-libertarian b-bu-but who will build roads argument.

>>1410039
Retard don't make cute little edits to roads you don't like just because your city council isn't doing anything. Not only do drivers not know if they're legit or not, but you could get people fucking killed when they try to follow crosswalks that have no signage or lights to alert an inattentive rider that suddenly one has sprung up overnight.

Both of these people were well intentioned but retarded.

>>1410039
retard confused why another retard got punished for illegally vandalizing government property

>>1410048
>Government spending is for shit that the free market either can't or won't provide at a reasonable cost,
>here's two examples of the free market providing for free and getting punished for it
>ARGBKRAHPHUERHWEOHCVNWAR
lol

>>1410056
>>here's two examples of the free market providing for free and getting punished for it
No you fucking retard. They aren't providing a proper crossroad; they're painting on a road without any concern for proper road planning, pedestrian/car safety, or emergency service routes. You can't just make a crosswalk wherever you want because not only do you not have the proper signage or lights to make it clear to drivers, but it also completely disregards the fact that ROADS ARE DESIGNED WITH THOSE THINGS IN MIND. If there isn't a crosswalk somewhere you think there should be one, then there's usually a good fucking reason for that. And if you think someone made a mistake or things changed, take that before your fucking planning board or a team of experts to make sure of that instead of egotistically treating yourself as sole authority who can't possibly be mistaken.

>>1410057
When you get done sperging take a moment to breathe, and then realize most of the shit that you listed (roads, US Post, etc.) can be provided without the government taking money from people to do that. Then start sperging again so I can laugh at you.

>>1410061
>(roads, US Post, etc.) can be provided without the government taking money from people to do that.
Yeah I'd rather not our roads and postal systems be privatized and us left to the whims of whatever rich shithead owns them, thanks.

>>1410064
McCarthy was right.

>>1410069
You have been indoctrinated to think so.

>>1410071
Venona papers.

>>1410031
>Tax cuts are a cost on regular Americans.
Remember that link I posted showing how California spends a metric fuck-ton on "Health and Human Services" (i.e. welfare)? It's the largest chunk of spending - especially in 2023.

So when you say these cuts are a cost on regular Americans, what you mean is I'm not paying for welfare queens as much as I used to and you're upset about it.

>Government spending is for shit that the free market either can't or won't provide at a reasonable cost, and benefits us all.
>Public Roads. US Post. Defense. Border Control. Healthcare. All these things enrich all of us.
Again look at the fucking chart here
>https://open.fiscal.ca.gov/transparency.html
And tell me how much of that is going to roads, boarder control (kek in California), etc.

>Republicunts pretend they want to lower taxes, but all they want to do is give more money to billionaires and give more burden to regular Americans
And all you want to do is take chunks of my money and give it to people who don't fucking work because they vote accordingly.

>>1410072
>Venona papers.
So? Do you think that justifies bullying innocent people for political gain?

>>1410074
Yes, he does.

>>1410079
That's where you're wrong.

>>1409848
>Nowhere do you get the Shawaniqua strawman
ftfy

>>1409848
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

>>1410091
retard

>>1409835 (OP)
We know for a fact that they don't even read the bills they vote for. The guy who supposedly authored it probably didn't even read it.

>>1410215
Republicunts aren't paid to read
They're paid to pass any bill their masters tell them to pass, then project their inadequacies to democrats so retarded tranny obsessed shills can ineffectively slop that shill sauce on a chiese basket weaving forum

>>1410216
https://files.catbox.moe/rkeh42.jpg

>>1410305
This isn't an image board.
If you're having problems expressing your thoughts with words maybe rddit is more your speed

>>1410305
Who owns catbox.moe and why do I keep seeing shills use it so much?

>>1409835 (OP)
>Republicans Try to Discredit Experts Warning About the Cost of Tax Cuts
We don't need to be experts to see how things are going tits up for Trump, and not just the retard fight between him & Elol.
But because of what's happening, that has aged well for the Republicans. In Soviet America, current events discredit you.
The only possible way you can prove us wrong is to politically destroy Trump. Now, GOP. Otherwise in Soviet Midterms, voters will politically destroy you. Look at what voters did to Conservatives in UK via voting for Labour, thus Starmergeddon: a 400+ seat majority last year, recently added to with a Labour win in a by-election. Think nothing's impossible? Obama. Twice.
So it's either politically destroy Trump now or you'll be politically destroyed two & four years from now. Choose wisely, Republican Party.

>>1410069
>McCarthy
An alcoholic that died a pickled irrelevance. 'Tailgunner Joe', the ultimate embarrassment to the US Marines who was destroyed by his superior - Supreme Commander, then Commander-in-Chief - Dwight D. Eisemhower by he letting that drunken subhuman have enough political rope to hang himself, then when he was politically destroyed, just said 'McCarthyism was McCarthyWASm' and continued being superior to that subhuman by not acknowledging his existence. Also by being the last decent Republican president. Eisenhower was more than right. McCarthy was eternally wrong by merely existing. The only thing he did right was - via booze - ensuring he ceased to exist, with a reputation & credibility that never existed in the first place. McCarthy lived as an embarrassment & a subhuman, and died an insult to humanity & ultimately an ignored nothing. Good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#Death
'In the summer of 1957, a special election was held to fill McCarthy's seat. In the primaries, voters in both parties turned away from McCarthy's legacy. The Republican primary was won by Governor Walter J. Kohler Jr., who called for a clean break from McCarthy's approach; he defeated former Representative Glenn Robert Davis, who charged that President Eisenhower was soft on Communism.
Kohler was defeated in the special general election by Democrat William Proxmire. After assuming his seat, Proxmire did not pay the customary tribute to his predecessor and stated instead that McCarthy was a "disgrace to Wisconsin, to the Senate, and to America." As of 2025, McCarthy is the last Republican to have held, or won election to, Wisconsin's Class 1 Senate seat
>As of 2025, McCarthy is the last Republican to have held, or won election to, Wisconsin's Class 1 Senate seat
>As of 2025
Gee, we wonder why? /s

>>1410387
Part of McCarthy's problem was I think he started as using his accusations as a political tool, but he huffed his own fumes enough that he started genuinely believing it. The guy accused THE ENTIRE PROTESTANT CHURCH of being a group of communist subverters. IN THE FUCKING 1950S. The moment he tried going after someone he couldn't dig up obscure dirt on, it all fell the fuck apart.

Taxes are bad, if you believe they aren't then you are a moral inferior

>>1410421
>let's just keep cutting taxes until the rate is 0% and the government can't pay for anything without printing money
Why are you like this?

>highest rate of tax in the 1950s was 91%. Republican voters elected Dwight D. Eisenhower as US president. They said 'I Like Ike': Twice
>Eisenhower was the last decent Republican president
Fact: Taxes are good. If you believe otherwise, you are not only immoral, you are an inferior subhuman.
>believe
You cannot spell 'Believe' without the word Lie.
Only normal sane people accept Facts.
Fact: Eisenhower was the last normal sane Republican president.

>>1410425
Printing money is a hidden form of taxation itself
>>1410425
>Eisenhower was the last decent Republican president
>Fact: Eisenhower was the last normal sane Republican president.
Oh yeah the same prick that was more worried about gay people than communism

>>1410427
>>1410433

Oh yeah, >>1410433 the same gay prick that is worried about that it can never avoid: tax, or the IRS will get you. And they don't fuck about. You WILL pay or do hard time in prison where you WILL be gay.

>>1410433
>Printing money is a hidden form of taxation itself
If the tax rate is 0% then the government has no revenue except credit.

>>1410437
Wesley Snipes found out the hard way.

>>1409840
>He wants to give amazon.com more tax breaks on the backs of poor people .
yes and? welcome to capitalism